§ Statement of Purpose

The View from 1776 presents a framework to understand present-day issues from the viewpoint of the colonists who fought for American independence in 1776 and wrote the Constitution in 1787. Knowing and preserving those understandings, what might be called the unwritten constitution of our nation, is vital to preserving constitutional government. Without them, the bare words of the Constitution are just a Rorschach ink-blot that politicians, educators, and judges can interpret to mean anything they wish.

"We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution is made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams, to the Officers of the First Brigade, Third Division, Massachusetts Militia, October 11, 1798.

§ Syndicate

The View From 1776

Justice Sunday: A Political Mistake?

I must respectfully disagree with John Leo.

————-
John Leo writes a column for USNews & World Report that is a paragon of sanity and decency. It is thus a matter of regret to disagree with him on a view expressed in his recent column titled Justice Sunday.

Writing about the April 24 rally and national telecast sponsored by conservative Christian groups, he concludes:

“Consider just the damaging fallout from an event that is meant as a strenuous effort to identify religion with one political party…..Accusing the Democrats of running a jihad against believers clearly implies that people who vote Democratic are either terribly ignorant or simply not good Christians, Jews, or Muslims. This is a surefire recipe for increasing polarization within the churches.”

Mr. Leo’s assessment of the politics may be correct. Doubtless his political judgment is better than mine. But one basis for his assessment is, I believe, wrong. He writes:

“The premise is that Senate Democrats, by threatening to filibuster several of President Bush’s judicial choices, have attacked religious believers….Pardon me, but this is clearly untrue. The Democrats would be delighted to approve fervently religious nominees, so long as they endorse Roe v. Wade and the party’s general strategy of using the courts as an end run around the legislative process. The obvious is true: The filibuster threat is about abortion politics and left-right polarization, not religion.”

In fact, using Mr. Leo’s own terms, the dispute is clearly about religion. The American religion that approves of abortion is secular, atheistic socialism, which includes nominal Christian groups that have watered-down the Gospel message to avoid offending our increasingly secular and hedonistic populace. Liberal-socialists, for obvious reasons, would be happy to appoint judges who worship at those altars.

Whether this is a divisive issue or not, it clearly is a matter of liberals struggling to impose the religion of secular socialism via judicial fiat.

In a larger context, the issue is the fact that we already have an unconstitutionally-established national religion, and that religion is secular socialism. It first climbed into the saddle in 1933, and has by now become firmly seated. Something must be done to disestablish the religion of socialism.